JACK HENDERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
MARILYN HENDERSON, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Husband's petition to reduce permanent alimony was properly denied because fluctuating finances due to ongoing bankruptcy reorganization did not constitute the required "strong showing" of permanent decline in ability to pay.
A party seeking to modify permanent alimony must demonstrate a strong showing of permanent decline in financial ability, which cannot be met by evidence of temporary fluctuations caused by ongoing bankruptcy proceedings.
[1] Modification of permanent alimony requires a strong showing of permanent decline in obligor's financial ability; temporary fluctuations caused by ongoing bankruptcy proce…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“strong showing of a permanent decline in his ability to make the alimony payments”
The court explained the legal standard the husband must meet to obtain modification of permanent alimony.
Four months after a divorce judgment awarding permanent alimony, the husband filed a petition to decrease the award, claiming changed financial circum…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Modification Of Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Judge.
Four months after the final judgment which dissolved the marriage of the parties the husband filed a petition to decrease the award of permanent alimony because of a change in his finances. After a hearing, the trial court denied the petition. The husband appeals that order. We affirm.
The husband has experienced wide fluctuations in his finances, largely because his solely-owned corporation is in the throes of reorganization in the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy proceedings were not concluded at the time of the hearing on the husband’s petition. We can understand why the trial judge found that the evidence of these constant changes in the husband’s finances did not meet his burden of a “strong showing” of a “permanent” decline in his ability to make the alimony payments. Schiff v. Schiff 54 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1951); Thibodeaux v. Thibodeaux, 461 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Bish v. Bish, 404 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). It may be that when the husband’s finances become stabilized, through termination of the bankruptcy reorganization or otherwise, he will be able to prove that any post-judgment financial misfortune is of such a material, involuntary, and permanent nature as would entitle him to' relief. On this record he has not done so.
AFFIRMED.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cowie v. Cowie, 564 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…bert A. Cowie, the former husband, did not meet his burden to establish a permanent, unanticipated, substantial change in the financial circumstances of one or both parties. Jones v. Jones, 524 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Henderson v. Henderson, 463 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Penland v. Penland, 442 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The parties were married in 1963 and divorced in 1986. At the time of their divorce, the husband was forty-four years old and the wife was forty-three. At that time they h…
-
Wiedman v. Wiedman, 610 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…ement back on how that event affects the bottom line of the obligated spouse’s ability to pay the needed level of support. See Schiff v. Schiff, 54 So. 2d 36 (Fla.1951); Johnson v. Johnson, 516 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Henderson v. Henderson, 463 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Brown v. Brown, 440 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Withers v. Withers, 390 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 399 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 1981); Fowler; Fort; Smith v. Smith, 419 A. 2d 1035 (Me.1980). Even though a spouse’s in…
-
Marks v. Marks, 576 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…of his construction firms, Centennial Construction Company, had suffered dramatic financial reverses and was near bankruptcy. This alone is not a sufficient showing to warrant a termination of permanent periodic alimony. See Henderson v. Henderson, 463 So. 2d 485, 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (“It may be that when the husband’s finances become [*861] stabilized, through termination of the bankruptcy reorganization or otherwise, he will be able to prove that any post-judgment financial misfortune is of such a mater…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bish v. Bish, 404 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Schiff v. Schiff, 54 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1951)
- Mathews v. Mathews, 461 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)